Don't forget the next line as the staff approaches Renault to say "Your winnings, sir".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:
The union expects a return on investment.
Printable View
Don't forget the next line as the staff approaches Renault to say "Your winnings, sir".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:
The union expects a return on investment.
well, I'M shocked that the union supports candidates that share their interests. To use a fun new bit of jargon, I'm amused by the amount of pearl-clutching that's going on in this thread. I know that the posters are not a naive bunch but a lot of posts in this thread seem to be over-the-top reactions to pretty unremarkable behavior. I would expect development groups to put money into the campaign of the candidate that seems more likely to support policies favorable to them. I'm sure they'd be thrilled if they can own the candidate outright, but I'm equally sure they'll live with less and be relatively happy with the outcome. And I'd expect a union to behave likewise. In fact, I'd expect anyone who's affected much by public policy, who has money at stake and who has any to spend, would pick a candidate who helps further their interests. If any person or group has non-financial interests, but money to spend, they might act similarly. A lot of posts here prefer to jump right to the extremes - all motivations are taken to their comic-book-villain equivalents. No candidate has a mild preference or tilts slightly in one direction or another - everyone's sold out and self-interested. Fun, but weird and unrealistic. And not really helpful for those of us who don't intimately know the candidates themselves.
The seiu supported furch, then carrillo, now evans, everybody makes mistakes, the question is; do you learn from them?
https://i.imgur.com/yv1Iu.png
Syar Industries enters political frey in the Fifth
by Ernie Carpenter
Syar Industries, a former Russian River gravel miner and Superior Supplies, a gravel supplier, has entered the Fifth District Supervisorial contest. They gave candidate Lynda Hopkins $15,000 in March 2016 and that is how they entered the Fifth District campaign. Whatever one may conjecture, Syar Industries definitely knows that one vote counts.
The Sonoma County Aggregate Resources Management Plan long called for an end to instream and Terrace pit mining on the Russian River. Syar Industries tried well after County deadlines had passed to continue terrace mining. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors after intense lobbying allowed Syar to resume gravel mining on a 3-2 vote in 2009 in the Russian River terraces. That was “blocked by a Sonoma County Superior Court judge’s ruling that county supervisors exceeded their authority in granting a permit extension to the quarry company.”
Syar was challenged by Russian Riverkeeper, Westside Association to Save Agriculture and North Coast Rivers Alliance according to a November 19, 2009 Press Democrat story. Now, Fifth District Supervisorial candidate Lynda Hopkins has received $7,500 from Syar owners; one lump coming from a “Closed” Napa golf course owned by the Syar family. At the same time, Superior Building Supplies, gravel suppliers, bequeathed an equal donation of $7,500 to Hopkins; $15,000 at one table setting from river rock mining companies.
River residents must be scratching their heads over this one given Hopkins proclaimed love for the Russian River. Hopkins may be a “fresh face” but it is an old staid gravel, construction, Big Wine and real estate money faucet that is funding her campaign. A majority of her contributions flow from out of the District and that has given her the boost she needs. Syar has now apparently found a candidate that is to their liking. Must be the open seat. It has been rare for gravel miners to spread their wealth into the Fifth. Previously, no environmentally conscious Fifth District candidate would take instream gravel mining money.
Perhaps, not so odd. Hopkins’ majority contributions have come from out of the Fifth District and from development interest. She has more contributions from the Fourth District than the Fifth District. Development and real estate political committees have dug deep for Hopkins. Voters and residents should be asking “What’s up with that, Lynda?” It has been demonstrated that one vote on the Board of Supervisors’ counts. That is the knowledge and the reason Syar and development interest are willing to enter the Frey, get skin in the game, set the table in the Fifth. Lots of good, leafy green extraction money to try and capture the Fifth and the third vote. They chose Hopkins.
It is incongruent to see Ms. Hopkins out picking up trash from the lower Russian on Monday and then taking over $15,000 from gravel interest that want to operate in the Middle Reach on Tuesday. The environmental issues from Terrace and instream mining have been well documented. The Board of Supervisors correctly phased out Terrace mining due to these negative environmental impacts. Syar never agreed with the phase out and perhaps have waited for this moment. Whatever the reason for Syar and Superior to enter the Frey in the Fifth, it is probably not good for the environment or the Russian River.
Slam unions all you want. They are not perfect, little is, except Mother Nature.
However, through the history of our country, unions - groups of workers - are the main democratic force, standing against complete control by big money.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
Point taken. My problem is not with unions but rather the pension deal which is strangling the county budget, especially police, fire, and upper level management.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
I for one would not be able to vote for you, Tom, after this display of immature sarcasm on WACCO. This type of temperament is not what we need or want in a public official.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:
wandering OT yet again.. but I agree with this formulation of the problem. I think this country - and for that matter, the world - has a problem with the single-digit percenters as a whole. Most of them feel (and with some justice) that they worked for and earned their position in the single digit group. Since they played by the rules to get there, they feel, again with some justice, that it's unfair to penalize them retroactively. Some idiot even coined the phrase "punished for their success" which shows a severe misunderstanding of the concept of punishment.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
But that's the challenge of the future - can we find a way to limit the resource inequities? By definition, there will always be a top ten percent and it won't really matter if those in it now are still in it then. (Despite the fact most people consider themselves well above average in many ways, the math says otherwise.) How to rebalance that, without fueling those who think that 'wealth redistribution' is stealing, is the biggest social challenge we're going to face. Social equality (e.g. race, gender) is still a tough one too, I guess....
Some of us have motives other than money. I don't stand to gain financially from any of them. I support Noreen Evans because I love the coast, the open space, the farmland, the wildlife that lives off the open spaces, the parks. I also support working people and the need for affordable housing. I don't profit financially from any of that, but I do profit spiritually. I think you will find that true of most progressives - care about the public good and not personal profit.
I also want to add that Lynda has lived in the Fifth district 6 months longer than Noreen but has never voted in the 5th district. Whereas Noreen Represented the fifth district as our Senator for 4 years. I have watched how she represented us and everything she does matches my values with a record to prove it.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
thanks, lisa.
lynda's support FROM GRAVEL MINING COMPANIES PLUS REALTORS AND BIG AG AND WINERIES (plus EFREN'S ENDORSEMENT)... uhhhh, what part of this do people not understand?
does anyone actually believe money is accepted without allegiance to the donors of these funds? this is beyond obvious. please get real - enough with a candidate decrying not being beholden. sheeesh.
this thread, while exploring many important aspects of county finances, etc., has given far too much repetition /visibility of lynda's name. let's start new threads with other candidates' names.
jude
p.s. to kwilson: regarding deciding against voting for tom on the basis of some humor injected here, after his contributing pages of detailed information and analysis and proposals - i find humor not only not a crime but welcomed relief from the tedious and necessary delving political responsibilities entail. not to say that i am settled on voting for him, though i certainly have gained respect for him through his substantive interchange here. far more than the other candidates.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Lisa Maldonado:
I would have to disagree. Being a Buddhist for the last 30 years, I have sought balance in all aspects of my life, including running for office. All of my contributions have been spontaneous acts from people I know or were inspired by hearing me speak.
My interest is to provide the best services possible to the people I wish to represent. I am running for Supervisor of the 5th District because I feel passionately about the place I have called home for the last 50 years, 40 of those years in the 5th District. My angle is to have someone who's heart and life are in the District. If you have any questions for me, I answer all of my own e-mail [email protected].
Cheers, Marion
https://www.marionchase4supervisor.com/
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Marion is the real deal too!!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by marionchase:
in the interests of balance myself - I don't share the opinions of many who see nothing but evil self-interest in campaign contributors, but equally, I don't share your optimism about the sunny motivations of those who support you. I betcha they think that your actions in public office will make the county align better with their interests.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by marionchase:
again, that's not a criticism! it's really how it should work. I'm objecting to the moralistic interpretations; those you inspire aren't necessarily more noble than, for example, those who want land policy changes that enable their own chosen way of life.
I know, tl;dr but in my post I said "If any person or group has non-financial interests, but money to spend, they might act similarly."Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:
you're positing "most progressives" as caring about the right things, and implying the 'others' don't. I see self-interest in making the county safe for those who share your feelings about things, and I see it on both sides. I don't see it being wrong per-se. Enough redundant posts, I hope....
Yes, yes, the public sector is no place for a sense of humor, much less sarcasm. We need humorless policy wonks, I just can't imagine what Tom was a-thinkin..........Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by KWilson:
I need to attribute "through the history of our country, unions - groups of workers - are the main democratic force, standing against complete control by big money" to Noam Chomsky, from his recent Netflix documentary "Requiem for the American Dream"
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
Completely agree for private employee unions. they are on the opposite side of big money and owners. Owners watch out for themselves, unions watch out for members, a virtuous tension exists.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
But who watches for the taxpayers who are on the hook when elected officials (supported strongly by the unions) negotiate with the unions that support them: what happens is what we see with pensions. No money to fix roads and money to pay pensions so far greater than any of us private workers will see it seems like a public worker has hit the lottery (only we're paying for the tickets).
About the pension plan which you state, I have no argument, but as to your issue on "junior second dwelling units with zero impact fees, no hookup charges and no affordability charges for owner occupied homes that want to create a small second unit", etc. I DO TAKE ISSUE! Western Sonoma County is no longer the wild west with wannabes thinking there is still manifest destiny in operation here. While we do have housing issues up the ying yang, why is the tax burden left to the legitimate homeowner? West county is awash with huge numbers of "junior second dwelling units" already untaxed. That means that Legitimate homeowners are already carrying much more than their own tax burden.
This is one reason our roads are in such dire shape, the multiple second and even primary dwellings who are not paying a fair tax because they have built and continue to use the services which are paid for by hard working tax payers (and I haven't' even mentioned marijuana plantations). So Ms. & Mr. taxpayer not only pay for county pensions, but also for the schools, roads, law enforcement, welfare, undocumented worker and whatever else residents wish to put on their plate. And now you want to add an untold number of untaxed additional units. Get real!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:
maybe I missed his desire for 'untaxed' units. Sounds like you've made a good case for adding more property inspectors.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dorothy Friberg:
It's never made sense to me how society balances freedom vs. laws by insisting on poor enforcement. No-one would accept (ok, few would..) having their car's speed broadcast to the CHP, but we're happy with speed limits. There's a weird social compact about when and where it's ok to enforce the speed laws, and most especially on how to do it. This extends to tax law - and really all over the place. Of course, the main beneficiaries are the fabled 1% who know how to dodge enforcement, or to get enforcement operations de-funded, and those who suffer are the powerless who feel the full weight of capricious enforcement.
But the rest of us 'typical' people typically don't rock the boat, glad to get away with building a granny-unit on the sly or rolling through a stop sign unmolested. Perfect enforcement is a science-fiction nightmare, of course, but this more human way has its negative side effects. Tightening some things up would be beneficial.
one obvious thing to do is increase the number of enforcers (IRS auditors, property inspectors, traffic cops) as long as the fines and taxes previously left uncollected pay for their employment. Sounds awful, doesn't it? since it does, we get what we have now. That's easier than ensuring the laws are (nearly) universally acceptable.
What society has, is a social contract. Such as trusting that the other driver will stop at her stop sign (if she has one) so that traffic can proceed in other directions without wondering if it is safe to proceed. Few of us can stomach the multiple rules which are placed on us in a burgeoning society. But we all need to carry our own fair share, not so much of enforcement as participation in a smooth running society. Very few of the famous 1% live in west county. If you use the roads, pay for them. If you use the schools, do the same. You can float around in your head your paranoias about cops and inspectors, I am discussing with a potential supervisor of the 5th district the addition of units which he thinks need to bypass our county requirements. I agree that present building fees are out of reach for many of us and prevent worthy people from being properly housed. What needs to change is the bottleneck in government (and your attitude 'free for me' and to heck with the rest of you.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
This is what happens when you have laws and a society dominated by real estate and big business interests- regulations written for the interests of those who wish to make money- not community.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dorothy Friberg:
When I moved to Santa Rosa ten years ago I was truly flummoxed by this beautiful and quaint little town with a big ugly mall right in the middle of it. I asked a couple of natives "whose idea was it to drop a big concrete mall in the middle of this sweet little town?" and the responses were generally "that's what happens when you get real estate and developers on the city council and board of supervisors."
That's why it DOES matter that Lynda Hopkins is being funded by Big Business developers and real estate pacs and the Syar Gravel Mining interests. They and others like Tom Lynch want to distract you with ranting and raving about pensions and unions while they continue despoiling our county until the whole thing looks like Santa Clara....A Vote for Noreen Evans is a vote for thoughtful and community based planning-and Noreen is supported by the Sierra Club and Sonoma County Conservation Action.
Not like Lynda who talks a great game about organic food and compost toilets ; while she is taking money from Syar Gravel Mining interests and big wineries who's main concern is the pursuit of a blessed buck by Any means necessary- including despoiling one of the most beautiful places in the country
From what I've heard, there is a good case for relaxing regulations around 2nd units, as was done in Novato.
There could be a moratorium on 2nd units, where people could come forward, without risk, to legalize them. The same with Junior 2nd dwelling units. They could be added to the tax on the property. The main issue is providing more affordable housing.
When any idea is proposed, that's in the public good, there will always be people opposed. The argument of "not paying your fair share" is a scarcity argument, that will exacerbate the housing crisis. The CA Legislative Report has proposed higher density housing in CA coastal communities, such as around Smart Train Stations. Will there be people opposed? Of course. However, we need to look at the greater good, of providing more housing, and not catering to those who got here first.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dorothy Friberg:
Can we start threads to address the important issues of the 5th District (roads, pensions, housing, homeless, etc.) and get poor Lynda off this title? Just sayin'......
From Barry:
Have at it, Terijane!:waccosun:
I agree, if you use our roads, you should help pay for the repair and upkeep. The very first thing I pushed for during the candidate forums is just that. I want to raise the Occupancy Tax 3% and have the full amount go to our roads and emergency infrastructures in West County. This revenue would stay in the community it was derived in. If the revenue is raised in Bodega, it would stay in Bodega to pay for Emergency services such as Bodega Fire as well as the roads themselves. This will not place an undue burden on tourism. It will bring us into alignment with the GST (goods and services tax) of other Countries.
I am the only one proposing a fee on rental vehicles. This fee will apply to anyone using a Driver's License from outside of Sonoma County. These funds will then be designated to pay for a Infrastructure Preservation Bond. I believe we can pass both of these measures. Both District 1, which encompasses Sonoma and District 4, which encompasses Healdsburg, would benefit from the new revenue. Both Districts are popular tourism areas.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dorothy Friberg:
Yea! Thanks to Teri for this suggestion. Let's stop picking on the youngest person running. This is the single worst thread that I have seen in my years reading Wacco. What a disgrace. We may need her in the future.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by terijane:
Just got my Lynda sign. So excited!
Nice sign Zeno, but I think our signs are better, real works of art :0).
kind regards to all (including Lisa Maldonado :).
Tom "Developer Lackey" Lynch
p.s. Thank you Shepherd for your kind words on deaf ears :).
What don't you get about the fact that Noreen Evans' previous campaigns were funded by big wine, big business, big real estate, and big casinos? How much good did it do them? The answer is the same as it will be with Lynda Hopkins; NONE.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Lisa Maldonado:
When you donate money to a homeless person, do you first ask them for their allegiance to you? The idea that Lynda Hopkins has been bought by the people who have donated money to her campaign is that ridiculous.
I would like to know as well Zeno.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by sealwatcher: